Volume 19, Issue 2

Hong Kong was once dubbed ‘the city of protest’, a seemingly derogatory description that actually highlights the vibrancy and vocality of this small international city. However, as the usually peaceful and orderly protests and demonstrations gradually degenerated into riots, arson, and criminal damage during the Anti-Extradition Protests in 2019, the Central People’s Government perceived a severe national security loophole in Hong Kong. In response, it swiftly imposed the highly controversial Law of the People’s Republic of China on Safeguarding National Security in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, in the absence of any sort of meaningful public consultation. International academic discourse often argues that the National Security Law has significantly restricted, if not entirely suffocated, freedom of expression in Hong Kong. This article acknowledges that freedom of expression in Hong Kong is indeed constrained within its social, political, and cultural context; however, it also seeks to explore how the courts in Hong Kong, often regarded as defenders of human rights and freedoms in the region, work to protect freedom of expression from being unduly curtailed under the guise of national security. Motivated by a strong interest in investigating the role of the Judiciary of Hong Kong, this article, after defining the meaning of freedom of speech in Hong Kong, examines several landmark cases in Hong Kong that involve the delicate balance between national security and freedom of expression. The central argument is that despite the restrictions imposed by the Law, the Hong Kong courts, now dancing with shackles, have endeavoured to use their judicial vehicles to safeguard freedom of speech. While the judicial approach adopted by the Hong Kong courts may not be as robust and straightforward as various interested parties in Hong Kong and in the international world would prefer; the strength and scope of protection of freedom of speech in Hong Kong has strengthened since the enactment of Bill of Rights Ordinance domesticated the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and has remained so in the pre-National Security Law era. Although the leeway for free speech has narrowed in the post-National Security Law era, such protection still surpasses that of Hong Kong’s early colonial days before the Bill of Rights Ordinance was enacted and essentially remains consistent with the new constitutional order of Hong Kong. The Hong Kong courts can always be seen as dedicated guardians of freedom of expression within the domestic context and should be trusted as such.

The system established by the European Convention on Human Rights, including execution of judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, has made an extraordinary contribution to the protection and promotion of human rights in Europe. Thus, while the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe continues to supervise the execution of thousands of judgments of the European Court, it has at the same time closed its supervision in respect of even more cases because thousands of the human rights problems previously raised under the Convention are now considered to have been resolved. While suggesting that the system of execution of judgments of the European Court works effectively, this paper would allow the reader to assess its effectiveness by looking at the execution statistics through the prism of the presented knowledge of the actors of the execution process, its content and the procedure of supervision by the Committee of Ministers.

The paper analyses territorial disputes from a legal-philosophical perspective, focusing on the work of Jorge E. Núñez and his cosmopolitan approach to international Law and State sovereignty based on an interdisciplinary and analytical perspective. First, the tensions between territorial disputes and the right to self-determination are explored, highlighting that secession can only be an acceptable solution in some cases. Secondly, Nuñez distinguishes between absolutism and relativism, arguing that relativism is more aligned with democracy and equality, along the lines of Kelsen. The paradox of the “believing relativist” is raised, which applies to the difficulty of sustaining a universal legal framework without some kind of minimum moral agreement. Thirdly, Nuñez defends exclusive positivism for international relations, where morality is not a necessary criterion for a legal system to exist. Criticisms of exclusive positivism are presented from the perspectives of the “circumstances of justice” and the internal point of view of the Law.

Hard times need bold thinking. In the year 2022, Luigi Ferrajoli published ‘Per una Costituzione della Terra. L’umanità al bivio’ (A Plea for a Constitution of the Earth. Humanity at a Crossroad), where, urging to take the several constitutional charters and international conventions on human rights seriously, he advocates for a sweeping reform of the U.N. Charter, aiming at establishing the institutional frame for making global constitutionalism effective. The year 2024 has seen the publication of Jorge E. Núñez’s Cosmopolitanism, State Sovereignty and International Law and Politics. A Theory, where he argues for a system of international (inter-societal and inter-individual) relationships where national legal orders and international law coexist within the coordinating frame of an irenic universal law. The paper purports to offer the outline of a critical comparison of the two proposals (realistic utopias?) Ferrajoli and Núñez respectively set forth.

Cosmopolitanism, State Sovereignty and International Law and Politics: A Theory, by Jorge Núñez, is an insightful and highly original book. I focus on the confluence that Núñez suggests, from multidimensionality and into law, especially universal law. The influx of universal law can be traced through Hart’s distinction of law-making, law-identifying, and law-applying operations. First, I emphasise how the book’s arguments bear on law-applying operations, or the universal application of law. I highlight the synergies of multidimensionality with intersectionality and interlegality. Afterwards, I discuss multidimensionality in law-identifying operations, or the universal recognition of law. I concisely point out its relevance in three levels (individual decisions, particular contexts, and generalised expectations), underlining the contribution on perspectives and roles provided by Núñez. The conclusion remarks the potential of multidimensional law as one and many.